Contents

Mid–Point Assessment Review

Mid–Point Assessment Recommendation Themes

22 of 25 PPS had recommendations as a result of the Mid–Point Assessment process.

Total number of recommendations ranged from 1 (3 PPS) to 23 (1 PPS).

Recommendations were organizational or project specific.

The most common recommendation was the ´Standard Modification´ recommendation from PAOP.

14 of the 25 PPS received this recommendation.The PPS must develop a detailed plan for engaging partners across all projects with specific focus on Primary Care, Mental Health, Substance Used Disorder providers as well as Community Based Organizations (CBOs). The Plan must outline a detailed timeline for meaningful engagement.

The Plan must also include a description of how the PPS will flow funds to partners so as to ensure success in DSRIP.

The PPS must also submit a detailed report on how the PPS will ensure successful project implementation efforts with special focus on projects identified by the IA as being at risk.

These reports will be reviewed and approved by the IA with feedback from the PAOP prior to April 1, 2017.

Mid–Point Assessment Action Plans

PPS that received at least one recommendation as a result of the Mid–Point Assessment process were required to complete a Mid–Point Assessment Action Plan.

Action Plans were due to the IA by March 10, 2017.

Action Plans were available for PAOP and public comment on March 20, 2017.

Final IA Approval of the Action Plans was completed by April 30, 2017.

PPS were required to implement Action Plans by the conclusion of DY3, Q2 (September 30, 2017).

PPS updates on progress towards implementing the Action Plans were provided as part of the DY3, Q1 PPS Quarterly Report in July 2017 and will provide final updates as part of the DY3, Q2 PPS Quarterly Report in October 2017.

Changes to PPS Reporting

Changes to PPS Reporting

During the PAOP meetings in February 2017, PPS noted limitations of the current reporting tool, the PIT, for Funds Flow and Partner Engagement.

In response to this feedback, the IA and DOH, created a new tool, the PIT–Replacement to support the reporting of Funds Flow and Partner Engagement.

The PIT–Replacement tool provides PPS with more flexibility in identifying and reporting their partners in the category or categories that most accurately reflect how the partner has been engaged by the PPS.

The PIT–Replacement also allows PPS to report their 2nd Tier Funds Flow distributions.

The Hospital and Case Management/Health Home categories were broken out in to multiple categories to allow for more discrete reporting of Funds Flow.

Additional clarification was also provided on the reporting of Funds Flow to the CBO Partner Type Category.

This category should represent only the Tier 1 CBOs that have received funds from the PPS. Tier 2 and Tier 3 CBOs would be reflected under the appropriate partner category, such as Mental Health, Substance Abuse, Clinic, or Case Management.

For the 14 PPS that received the ´Standard Modification´ recommendation from PAOP, the overall funding distribution and Non–Hospital/Non–PPS PMO distributions have increased since the Mid–Point Assessment.

Cumulative FundsFlow at MPA (DY2, Q2)

Cumulative FundsFlow at DY3, Q1

Additional FundsFlow since MPA

% Change in FundsFlow

Total Funds Flow

$264,754,674

$558,296,866

$293,542,192

111%

Non–Hospital / Non–PPS PMO Funds Flow

$71,559,831

$168,651,395

$97,091,563

136%

For the categories specifically highlighted in the ´Standard Modification´ recommendation, PPS Funds Flow distributions increased by over 100%.

PPS Progress on Mid–Point Action Plans – Partner Engagement

PPS have also made progress in increasing the number of partners engaged across the DSRIP Projects since the Mid–Point Assessment.

One PPS saw decreases in the number of engaged partners across multiple categories following the Mid–Point Assessment and has been excluded from these figures to avoid skewing the progress made by the remaining 24 PPS.

PartnerCommitments atDSRIP Application

Partners Engagedat MPA

Partners Engagedas of DY3, Q1

Additional PartnersEngaged

% Change inPartners Engaged

Partners Engaged

244,977

228,601

429,735

201,134

88%

Partner Engagement is defined as the PPS having a direct relationship with a partner as evidenced by a contract or other formal agreement.

The contract or formal agreement should identify the services to be provided by the partner on behalf of the PPS and the compensation from the PPS to the partner.

Partner compensation may be financial or through the provision of centralized service such as IT or staffing.

As of MPA (DY2, Q2)

As of DY3, Q1

Changes since MPA

Committed (inDSRIP project Plan Application)

Partners Engaged

% of CommittedPartners Engaged

Partners Engaged

% of CommittedPartners Engaged

AdditionalPartners Engaged

% increase inPartners Engaged

Practitioner – Primary Care

53,417

37,424

70%

58,841

110%

21,417

57%

Practitioner – Non–Primary Care

106,666

101,356

95%

198,796

186%

97,440

96%

Hospital

254

700

276%

964

380%

264

38%

Clinic

1,709

1,863

109%

2,581

151%

718

39%

Case Management / Health Home

1,298

1,242

96%

1,977

152%

735

59%

Mental Health

9,750

9,273

95%

20,838

214%

11,565

125%

Substance Abuse

1,235

960

78%

1,532

124%

572

60%

Nursing Home

860

1,104

128%

1,337

155%

233

21%

Pharmacy

979

324

33%

596

61%

272

84%

Hospice

96

174

181%

211

220%

37

21%

Community Based Organization

2,771

2,064

74%

3,192

115%

1,128

55%

All Other

65,942

72,117

109%

138,870

211%

66,753

93%

TOTAL – All Partners

244,977

228,601

93%

429,735

175%

201,134

88%

* Note: Count of committed and engaged partners does not reflect an unduplicated count. PPS could commit to and engage the same partner across multiple projects.

13 PPS have also made progress in increasing the number of partners engaged across the DSRIP Projects since the Mid–Point Assessment.

One PPS saw decreases in the number of engaged partners across multiple categories following the Mid–Point Assessment and has been excluded from these figures to avoid skewing the progress made by the remaining 13 PPS.

Partner Commitmentsat DSRIP Application

Partners Engaged atMPA (DY2, Q2)

Partners Engaged as ofDY3, Q1

Additional PartnersEngaged

% Change in PartnersEngaged

Partners Engaged

164,201

147,858

253,206

105,348

71%

For the categories specifically highlighted in the ´Standard Modification´ recommendation, PPS partner engagement increased for those 13 PPS.

Partner Commitmentsat DSRIP Application

Partners Engaged atMPA (DY2, Q2)

Partners Engaged as ofDY3, Q1

Additional PartnersEngaged

% Change in PartnersEngaged

Practitioner Primary Care

35,383

23,613

31,728

8,115

34%

Mental Health

6,238

6,145

14,420

8,275

135%

Substance Abuse

751

462

763

301

65%

Community Based Organizations

1,768

469

639

170

36%

As of MPA (DY2, Q2)

As of DY3, Q1

Changes since MPA

Committed (inDSRIP project Plan Application)

Partners Engaged

% of CommittedPartners Engaged

Partners Engaged

% of CommittedPartners Engaged

AdditionalPartners Engaged

% increase inPartners Engaged

Practitioner – Primary Care

35,383

23,613

67%

31,728

90%

8,115

34%

Practitioner – Non–Primary Care

74,035

70,819

96%

116,441

157%

45,622

64%

Hospital

150

469

313%

556

371%

87

19%

Clinic

998

1,046

105%

1,428

143%

382

37%

Case Management / Health Home

751

649

86%

1,027

137%

378

58%

Mental Health

6,238

6,145

99%

14,420

231%

8,275

135%

Substance Abuse

751

462

62%

763

102%

301

65%

Nursing Home

467

692

148%

796

170%

104

15%

Pharmacy

849

141

17%

245

29%

104

74%

Hospice

54

113

209%

137

254%

24

21%

Community Based Organization

1,768

469

27%

639

36%

170

36%

All Other

42,757

43,240

101%

85,026

199%

41,786

97%

TOTAL – All Partners

164,201

147,858

90.05%

253,206

154%

105,348

71%

* Note: Count of committed and engaged partners does not reflect an unduplicated count. PPS could commit to and engage the same partner across multiple projects.